I keep gaining weight while running 70 mpw

1) eat less (duh). hungry between meals or at night? grab an apple + a cup of coffee or water. that's your only option, deal with it.

2) long, fast aerobic runs. 8-12 milers in the HM/M pace range, finishing faster if you feel good. 2-3 of these a week (on can be in the middle of your long run) will get the lbs. off.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

Slopenguinrunner wrote:

Remember, a single serving of meat is the size of a deck of cards.

Moron. You can eat as much meat as you want, unless it's breaded, you won't gain weight. You're gaining weight from the pasta and the softdrinks that go along with that meat.

Moron.

Actually, all I am talking about is portion control. A serving of meat is about a deck of cards, which is about 4 oz. A 4 oz. serving of pasta is about the size of your fist. The problem with most Americans is that they have no idea how much food they are eating.

In regards to actual diet, I actually agree with you; lay off the carbs and sweets. Eat more protein. Where I disagree is that I do not believe you can eat as much as you want.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

A

You.

As I explained many times, the high mileage is causing him to eat an 80% carbs diet. This leads to weight gain, no matter what.

Again, go to your local Ironman event. These are guys who're "working out" 10-20 hours per week, yet half of them are overweight.

They're so addicted to sugar, they tape their GU-gels to their handlebar.

I think Dr Noakes has written on this in Real Meal Revolution. A protein and fat based diet tends to satiate the person better and better regulates insulin levels. It happens that the consumption of carbs causes the person to crave more carbs, which lends itself to overeating.

It is not the activity, but the diet in the first place.

Although, I think a lot of this speaks in generalities. Different genetic predispositions will allow for different dietary tolerances. It has been reported that Kenyans consume about 70 percent of their calories from carbs, mostly from ugali, which is a cornmeal mush.

Slopenguinrunner wrote:

Although, I think a lot of this speaks in generalities. Different genetic predispositions will allow for different dietary tolerances. It has been reported that Kenyans consume about 70 percent of their calories from carbs, mostly from ugali, which is a cornmeal mush.

Well said. You see too often people using poor logic when they say things like "Okinawans eat a high carb diet, therefore non-Okinawans should too" or "Kenyans eat a high carb diet, therefore non-Kenyans should too".

As humans spread across the Earth they did not magically acquire one another's dietary tolerances during tens of thousands of years (~100s of generations) of separation.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

Slopenguinrunner wrote:

Also, have you done 70 mpw before over a foundation phase? Can you do more like 80 or 90? Or additional cardio to make up for the mileage difference?

MORON.

If someone gains weight running 70mpw, you suggest more running.

If someone runs 100mpw and still gains weight, you suggest running 110mpw?

Unbelievable.

It is a relevant question based on the event(s) he is training for and his prior training history. If his prior weekly max was 50, then, no, he should not increase his mileage. Might risk injury. Another factor is whether he runs the 800/1500 or the 5000/10,000. If it is the former, then bumping up mileage might not make sense especially if the training history doesn't support it. However, if he is a 5000m man, 70 mpw at the college level doesn't really cut the mustard. If David Rudisha is in the 60s for the 800, training for XC distances requires more mileage.

Why does your opinion matter? What kind of times do you run? What is your height and weight?

College guys do you really want to take advice from a middle age weekend warrior, hobby jogger, hobby lifter like this guy?

I assume you run at least a sub 26 8k do you really want to get your advice from a 26 minute 5k guy just because he has different ideas about nutrition. I would try to find examples of successful guys who were bigger and try follow their diet plans, Craig Mottram, Matt Tegankamp, Chris Solinsky, etc.

UK Limey runner wrote:

Well said. You see too often people using poor logic when they say things like "Okinawans eat a high carb diet, therefore non-Okinawans should too" or "Kenyans eat a high carb diet, therefore non-Kenyans should too".

"poor logic" on their part, or poor reading comprehension on yours? I am pretty sure that what you wrote is not what "people" (most people) were concluding when referencing the above diets. What they *usually* DID write/conclude was the following (ok, I will speak for myself first, since your first reference is, as you well know, something I've brought up)-

(first the context, it matters, correct?)

------------------------

Cult_Fit_Paleo_Clown (or fill in other poster who regularly makes absurd statements about nutrition)-

"Carbs make you fat bro! this is beyond any doubt! No matter how many calories you eat, no matter what foods you eat, no matter who you are, if you eat high carb YOU WILL GET FAT. It's also a diet that will certainly lead to CVD. [OTOH, one can eat as much meat and dietary fat as they like, and as long as they eat no or very few carbs, you won't get fat or be unhealthy. It's true, google it bro! ] "

ME:

Complete and utter nonsense. THere are many people around the globe, and they can be found within all societies/cultures/ethnic groups, that eat a high % of their calories from carbs and are very thin and healthy and have low CVD rates. Vegetarians often eat a high carb diet and generally are thinner than non vegetarians and have lower CVD rates. People in asian countries (you know, a few billion or so) generally eat high carb diets and have very low CVD and obesity rates. Indigenous cultures found throughout the americas (not including eskimo cultures), such as the Tarahumara, eat a very high carb, low fat diet, and have very low rates of CVD.

(drum roll)....In fact, the people of Okinawa used to (this is changing a bit) eat a very high (80% or higher) carb diet and they have/had have the lowest CVD rates in the world. Carbs, per se, do not lead to obesity or CVD. Overeating calories and a sedentary lifestyle are the biggest culprits. Yes, many of the people and cultures cited above have active lifestyles and don't overeat calories.

So I am NOT saying a high carb diet is the KEY to their lack of obesity or CVD (though some of the particular high carb foods they eat may help bring about these benefits). No, I am simply saying that carbs in particular are not the reason people are fat. For people who eat tons of calories, and carbs make up the large majority of those calories, sure, then when they begin to use portion control and reduce calories, they probably will cut more carbs than fat. But for others, who eat too many calories for their activity levels and eat a lot of fat, they should cut more fat from the diet. Most people should cut some of each.

-----------

That's quite a bit different than: 'There's this *one* culture/group of people that a eat high carb and are very healthy. Therefore, that is the ONE and ONLY diet/type of diet that everyone should eat. Only a very high carb diet can make you healthy/thin. Everyone should eat this.'

But nice try!

So many words, so little inclination to bother reading them.

I have a question: How are you running those 70 miles? If you're running the same pace all the time, eventually your body gets used to it and adjusts -- i.e. it doesn't have the same training effect, you don't burn as many calories, etc.

UK Limey runner wrote:

So many words, so little inclination to bother reading them.

Is that supposed to hurt my feelings? If so, you can try a little harder than that.

And yes, it is beyond a doubt at this point that you have "little inclination" to learn anything regarding nutrition that doesn't fit your ideology. And I love when people say: 'that was too long to read' when the post is something like 4-5 short paragraphs! It's saying a lot about you that you consider that "so many words."

I'll keep it short for you this time because it appears you can only handle the cliffs notes version:

you've misinterpreted the reasons why people were giving those examples and the significance of the examples. Simple as that.

It isn't the length of your posts that makes me skip them, it is the dimwitted content. Watching you struggle with the simplest of concepts makes me feel sad inside, hence it just makes sense to avoid looking at what you write.

Stop quoting my posts. It catches my eye when you do and when I see my handle in one of your posts it makes me feel unclean.

Maybe you're pregnant... Sounds like something on the show "I Didn't Know I Was Pregnant"

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Is that supposed to hurt my feelings? If so, you can try a little harder than that.

UK Limey runner wrote:

It isn't the length of your posts that makes me skip them, it is the dimwitted content. Watching you struggle with the simplest of concepts makes me feel sad inside, hence it just makes sense to avoid looking at what you write.

Stop quoting my posts. It catches my eye when you do and when I see my handle in one of your posts it makes me feel unclean.

Ok, now you are trying TOO hard (to hurt my feelings), much too hard in fact, and looking ridiculous in the process.

Stop pretending you have a clue about a topic you know so little about. But sure, you are no different than the 100 million other "internet experts" who regularly pontificate on subjects they barely have a beginner's level understanding of.

And I actually should thank people like you and Cult Fit, because you guys bring up many of the popularly held nutrition myths that need combatting. This gives me the chance to further research these topics and refine my ability to rebut such misconceptions. So thank you, you Limey ba$tard, you. (and you get extra credit for having a historically significant nutrition related name)

TRex and Xfit guy are both right. In the end, total calories matter but the difference is that with Xfit guys approach you will never be hungry while losing weight. Whereas with TRex's methodology, you will suffer - while losing weight as well.

A whole different topic is how to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. It appears that Xfit guy knows a thing or two about his while TRex seems clueless.

Just my 2 cents.

Skinny Dude wrote:

TRex and Xfit guy are both right. In the end, total calories matter but the difference is that with Xfit guys approach you will never be hungry while losing weight. Whereas with TRex's methodology, you will suffer - while losing weight as well.

A whole different topic is how to maintain muscle mass while losing weight. It appears that Xfit guy knows a thing or two about his while TRex seems clueless.

Just my 2 cents.

LOL. Yes, your "2 cents" indeed.

CultFit changes his tune every day. One day it's: eat tons of protein. The next it's: wait, protein raises insulin, so not too much protein but LOTS of fat. The next, carbs are bad for you *but* if you want to get huge, you need lots of carbs. So......yeah, who knows what he thinks.

My "method" is simply based on reality, research, facts. *Not* myths, fads, "weird tricks", or "secret shortcuts!".

One will not suffer eating a diet of 50% carbs, 30% protein, and 20% fat any more than they will eating a diet of 60% fat, 35% protein, and 5% carbs. Most likely a lot less because they will be restricting food categories less, and high fiber "carb foods", which often also contain good amounts of protein, are at least as satiating as high fat foods, calorie per calorie.

Nice try X-Fit. We know it's you/

X-Fit started strong, but one cannot honestly believe that "fat doesn't make you fat" AND "carbs totally make you fat". As a concept, these two things are diametrically opposed.

You can get into the thermic effect of protein and channels of utilization for glucose, but that's not really going to help our poor running friend. There is a lot of good research coming out in nutrition that says "Hey, calories AREN'T just calories, source matters" but that's not enough to say that in a real life situation that this individual needs to eliminate an entire subset of food as his only road to success. "If the furnace is hot enough, it'll burn anything... even Big Mac" isn't true for everybody, thank you muchly Mr. Cassidy. Elimination of processed sugar and total avoidance of all things grain "ain't the same ball park, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same sport."

OP can make his diet better by small modification, and should try to do so prior to adopting an entirely new, paleo-centric lifestyle.

Hi Xfit guy!

That style of writing doesn't suit you. Leave pretentiousness and impeccable grammar to me.

I appreciate that you are bored, but please note that there are undoubtedly countless thousands who are grateful for your efforts over the past few months/years.

Thank you for each and every time you called a spade a spade.